CABLE FROM N.Z.

Evening Post, Issue 51, 28 August 1935, Page 9

CABLE FROM N.Z.

BABRISTE&'S REGEET

EXPLANATION TO COURT

SYDNEY, August 27.

Further reference to Mr. H. P. Richmond's cablegram to Mr. Justice, LongInnes's associate concerning the proposed sale of the Trust Building was made in the Equity Court today. Mr. David Maughan, K.C., who is not appearing for any party in the case, informed the Judge that apparently Mr. Richmond had selected him to convey an explanatory cablegram as he knew him personally. Mr. Richmond, in expressing his regret, explained that the cablegram was sent in his absence as the result of a misunderstanding arising out of a long-distance telephone conversation between himself and his office. In this conversation, on instructions from the debenture holders, he had authorised the'sending of a cablegram to Sydney solicitors or counsel.

Mr. Maughan explained that Mr. Richmond, who was a, man of high standing, and imbued with the highest traditions of his'profession, deeply regretted the incident. , Mr. Justice Long-Innes said he was sorry if the publicity given his remarks yesterday had caused Mr. Richmond any distress. \

A;cable received on Monday stated that when the sale of the Trust Building was mentioned in the EquityCourt at Sydney on Monday Mr. Justice Long-Innes read what he described as "a most extraordinary cablegram" which he jhad'received from New Zealand. cablegram read: "Re the.application concerning the Trust Building, formerly the property of- the McArthur companies, the New.Zealand debenture holders desire an opportunity to be heard. They are against sale at a low valuation. (Signed) Richmond, counsel for the New Zealand debenture holders' committee." Mr. Justice' Long said that if Mr. Richmond were a barrister and had signed the cable he had been guilty of gross impropriety in addressing a Judge on matters of this sort. Dr. Louat, who said he appeared for the McArthur Trust and had received no instructions from New Zealand, stated that he understood the New Zealand debenture holders' committee represented several thousand people.' He understood that they intended to oppose the sale of the building. "This is an improper way of opposing it," said bis Honour. "It is, of. course, contempt of Court. I can't do anything to them as-they are out of my jurisdiction."